Edward Balls: The Treasury has been working closely with the Financial Services Authority and industry on the development of a UK covered bonds regime. UK covered bonds are based on well-accepted market standards and benefit from a high level of legal certainty. The object of Treasury and FSA work is to ensure compliance with the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities ('UCITS') Directive. To this end, the Treasury intends to consult on secondary legislation at the earliest possible opportunity, with implementation by the end of 2007, earlier if possible. Such compliance creates a level playing field for UK covered bonds in the EU and delivers the best possible risk weight for UK covered bonds under the Capital Requirements Directive. Covered bonds have the benefit of:
	being a highly liquid, medium to long dated and cost effective debt instrument;
	providing a highly effective means of managing long-term liquidity risk for investors and issuers and an additional tool to manage interest rate risk;
	in macro-economy terms, greater' choice and efficiency in investment markets; and
	giving consumers the benefit of the greater efficiency of the funding of the mortgage market.

Phil Woolas: On 27 March I made a statement to the House on council tax capping. In this, I set out the action that the Government proposed to take, under the Local Government Finance Act 1992, against two local authorities which had set excessive budgets for 2006-07 according to the principles that I announced, 27 March 2006, Official Report, columns 567-69. Those two authorities were York city council and Medway borough council, which were both "designated", with a view to capping them in year. I am making a statement today about the decisions on both cases.
	York and Medway were given 21 days in which to challenge the maximum budgets the Government proposed to set them in 2006-07, and to provide the information we had requested. Both authorities challenged their proposed maximum budgets and I met delegations from each of them to hear their cases in person.
	The vast majority of authorities now appreciate the seriousness with which the Government views the need to protect council tax payers against excessive increases. The average band D council tax increase in England for 2006-07, without the council-tax element of the Olympics, is 4.2 per cent. (with the Olympics, it is 4.5 per cent.). Over 99 per cent., of authorities have responded well to our message and have not set excessive budgets. Despite the fact that the principles which the Secretary of State used to determine excessiveness were tighter this year than last, only two authorities exceeded them by more than trivial amounts.
	I can now announce how my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, intends to proceed, having carefully considered the representations York and Medway have made, both orally and in writing, and having taken into account all relevant information. These decisions have been based not only on the individual cases of these particular councils, but also on the need, as a matter of public policy, for authorities to restrain the demands on their council-tax payers.
	In putting forward their challenges, neither authority has, in the Secretary of State's view, presented strong arguments as to why an excessive increase was necessary, or demonstrated that the pressures identified acted disproportionately upon them to any significant extent compared to other authorities. We intend therefore to take action in both cases.
	After careful consideration, we have decided to cancel the designation of the two authorities and to "nominate" them instead with a proposed notional budget for each authority at the level of the maximum budget originally proposed when they were designated. For York city council, the proposed notional budget for 2006-07 is therefore £97,484,000 and for Medway Borough Council £148,101,000.
	By nominating the authorities in this way, the councils will be able to avoid re-billing for this year, but it reduces their capacity to increase council tax in the subsequent year and beyond. The notional budgets which we propose setting will be used in future capping comparisons. The authorities will have their budget increases next year measured against the notional budgets rather than their actual, higher budgets. This will provide their council-tax payers with extra protection next year.
	We are writing to both authorities today informing them of these decisions. Each authority will have 21 days from receipt of the notification of nomination in which to challenge its proposed notional budget. The Secretary of State will, of course, consider any challenge that they make fully and carefully.
	The Government are continuing to deliver on its promise to take action against excessive council tax increases. By 2007-08, Government grant for local services will have increased by more than the rate of inflation for 10 years in succession. That represents an increase of 39 per cent., in real terms since 1997.
	The Government have already made it clear that it expects an average council tax increase in England of less than 5 per cent., in 2007-08. Authorities should remain in no doubt that the Government will not hesitate to use their capping powers to deal with excessive increases in future years, including requiring them to rebill, if this proves necessary.

Rosie Winterton: I should like to set out the Government's proposals for ensuring that the law for England and Wales on the treatment and care of people suffering from a disorder or disability of mind, who lack capacity and who need to be deprived of liberty, is compliant with the European convention on human rights. Our proposals will strengthen the rights of patients and those in care, as well as ensuring compliance with the European convention on human rights (ECHR).
	People who suffer from a disorder or disability of the mind—such as dementia or autism—and who lack the mental capacity to consent should be cared for in the least restrictive regime possible. In some cases, members of this vulnerable group need to be deprived of their liberty for treatment or care because this is necessary in their best interests in order to protect them from harm.
	The proposals are in response to the 2004 European Court of Human Rights judgment involving an autistic man who lacked the capacity to consent and who was kept at Bournewood hospital by doctors against the wishes of his carers. The court found that he had been deprived of his liberty unlawfully, and the Department of Health committed to introducing new legislation to close the 'Bournewood gap'.
	In order to inform our response I published a consultation document in March last year that invited comments on options for closing the "Bournewood" gap. I am grateful to all those individuals and organisations who responded. Those who commented on the document were broadly in favour of the Government's proposals.
	I am today publishing a report on the outcome of the public consultation and a copy has been placed in the Library.
	People likely to be affected by the Bournewood proposals are mainly those with significant learning disabilities, or elderly people suffering from dementia, but include a minority of others who have suffered for example a brain injury. The proposals will apply to those in hospitals or care homes, whether placed under public or private arrangements.
	Key features of our proposals are:
	hospitals and care homes will have a duty to identify anyone at risk of deprivation of liberty and, if they do not consider that a less restrictive regime is possible, request an authorisation from the supervisory body;
	the supervisory body would be the local authority in the case of a care home or, in the case of a hospital, the PCT or in Wales the National Assembly of Wales;
	it will be unlawful for a hospital or care home to deprive a person of liberty without obtaining an authorisation;
	all involved must act in the best interests of the person concerned and in the least restrictive manner;
	the supervisory body will commission assessments including an independent "best interests" assessment which will look at whether the deprivation of liberty is necessary in the person's best interests;
	the best interests assessor, for example a social worker, will set the period for review in each case. This must not be longer than 12 months but we expect it to be shorter in many cases;
	family, friends and carers will be consulted as part of the best interests assessment and, if a person is unbefriended, an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate appointed;
	the supervisory body will only grant an authorisation if all the assessments recommend it;
	authorisation should be obtained in advance, except in circumstances where it is thought to be urgent, in which case authorisation should be obtained within seven days of the start of the deprivation of liberty;
	every person detained will have someone appointed to represent their interests who is independent of the supervisory body and the hospital or care home. This may be a family member, a friend or an advocate;
	managers of the hospital or care home will have a duty to monitor the person's circumstances because a change may require them to apply to the supervisory body for the authorisation to be reviewed;
	a review can also be triggered at any time by the person concerned or their representative;
	it will be easier to challenge deprivation of liberty. The person concerned or their representative, will have right of appeal at any time to the Court of Protection;
	if mental health legislation could be used instead, the new procedure will not be able to be used to admit or keep people in hospital for treatment for mental disorder if it is reasonably believed that the person concerned objects to detention for the purposes of such treatment or would object if they were in a position to do so.
	We believe that these proposals will ensure compliance with the European convention on human rights and strengthen the safeguards for those who lack capacity. Society is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable, and it is imperative that we have robust legal safeguards in place to ensure that those people who lack capacity are properly protected. The provisions will be introduced into the Mental Capacity Act 2005 through a Bill that will also amend the Mental Health Act 1983.